Archive

COLUMBUS, Ohio, July 13 (UPI) — A law on registration and community notification for released sex offenders cannot be applied retroactively, the Ohio Supreme Court said Wednesday.

The justices ruled 5-2 the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Law can only be applied to offenders who committed their crimes after it became effective, The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch reported. The court reversed a decision by a state appeals court.

“The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders,” Justice Paul Pfeifer said. “It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, ‘impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.'”

Justice Terrence O’Donnell in the minority opinion said the court has said in previous rulings that requiring sex offenders to register and providing community notification in some cases are civil sanctions, not criminal penalties.

The Ohio Supreme Court, in a ruling published today, has declared that imposing “enhanced” sex offender registration and community notification requirements on previously-convicted sex offenders, as required by the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) which was contained in 2007’s Senate Bill (SB) 10 is a violation of the Ohio Constitution.

“When the General Assembly adopted the AWA by enacting 2007 S.B. 10,” stated a Ohio Supreme Court press release, “it included statutory language requiring that, regardless of the date on which a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply a new three-tiered AWA offender classification scheme and must include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the prior, Megan’s Law, version of the statute.”

The decision was based on Article II, Sec. 28 of the Ohio Constitution, which states in part, “The general assembly shall have no power to pass retroactive laws.” Similar wording can be found in the U.S. Constitution as well, where one clause in Article I, Sec. 9 reads, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto [“after the fact”] Law shall be passed.”

The case at issue was State v. George Williams, where the defendant had been convicted for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor—conduct which took place prior to July, 2007, although Williams was convicted on the charges in December, 2007, after SB 10 had been passed.

“Prior to his sentencing hearing,” the Supreme Court’s press release stated, “Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. Pursuant to the AWA he was classified as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence, and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the next 25 years.” Under Megan’s Law, his registration and reporting requirements would have been limited to 10 years.

Williams appealed that ruling under the ex post facto/retroactivity clauses of both the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, as well as arguing violation of the U.S. Constitution’s due process clauses and its ban on double jeopardy.

Another portion of the AWA, which would have allowed the Ohio Attorney General to reclassify sex offenders without the necessity of judicial approval, was overturned by the same court just over one year ago.

The Ohio Supreme Court’s 5-2 decision, authored by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer, overturning the AWA was largely based on the fact that while several state decisions had held that the registration requirements of Megan’s Law were considered remedial rather than punitive in nature, “Following the enactment of SB 10, all doubt has been removed: R.C. Chapter 2950 [the AWA] is punitive,” Justice Pfeifer stated in the majority opinion. “The statutory scheme has changed dramatically since this court described (in [State v.] Cook) the registration process imposed on sex offenders as an inconvenience ‘comparable to renewing a driver’s license.’ … And it has changed markedly since this court concluded in [State v.] Ferguson that R.C. Chapter 2950 was remedial…

“Based on these significant changes to the statutory scheme governing sex offenders, we are no longer convinced that R.C. Chapter 2950 is remedial, even though some elements of it remain remedial…,” the high court concluded. “We conclude that SB 10, as applied to Williams and any other sex offender who committed an offense prior to the enactment of SB 10, violates Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution, which prohibits the General Assembly from enacting retroactive laws.”

“The Ohio Supreme Court decision in Williams does a really good job of explaining how in light of these internet websites that we now have, and community notification and criminal penalties attaching and more periodic registration in person with a sheriff there, all of these measures are looking more and more and more like punishment and less and less and less like a driver’s license,” one attorney analyzed, “and as that shift has happened, it’s become more like criminal punishment, and really, the Ohio Supreme Court is the first top court in a state to characterize it that way.”

Kinsley said that through her discovery motions in the case, it had been revealed that hundreds of people in Ohio will be affected by today’s decision, and will now be able to get on with their lives without the stigma of appearing on sex offender websites.

The legislature’s attempt four years ago to apply a new law to already-convicted sexual offenders violated the Ohio Constitution, the state Supreme Court ruled today.

Imposing enhanced registration and community notification requirements in the 2007 Ohio Adam Walsh Act against defendants whose crimes were committed before the effective date of that law violates a constitutional prohibition on the General Assembly enacting retroactive laws, the justices declared.

The 5-2 decision, which reversed a ruling by the 12th District Court of Appeals, was written by Justice Paul E. Pfeifer.

“The General Assembly has the authority, indeed the obligation, to protect the public from sex offenders,” Pfeifer said. “It may not, however, consistent with the Ohio Constitution, ‘impose new or additional burdens, duties, obligations, or liabilities as to a past transaction.’ “

Justice Terrence O’Donnell authored the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justice Robert R. Cupp.

Today’s decision came on the appeal of George Williams of Warren County, convicted in December 2007 for engaging in sexual conduct with a minor an offense that occurred before the Adam Walsh Act took effect. Williams asked the judge to sentence him under the previous sex offender classification setup, known as Megan’s Law.

The judge rejected that motion and classified him under the more stringent Adam Walsh Act as a Tier II offender, which required him to register with the sheriff in his home county and in any other county in which he worked or attended school, every 180 days for the ensuing 25 years.

Williams appealed, but was turned down by the 12th District Court of Appeals.

Pfeifer noted that in earlier Supreme Court decisions on previous changes in the sex offender law, justices upheld the changes because they were more remedial than punitive, and thus the constitutional ban on retroactive laws did not apply. But the changes in the Adam Walsh Act made them punitive, and therefore unconstitutional.

ISSUE: Does retroactive imposition of sex-offender registration requirements enacted in 2007 as part of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) on offenders whose crimes were committed before the effective date of the AWA violate the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. Constitution, and/or the provision of the Ohio Constitution prohibiting retroactive laws?

BACKGROUND: In a June 2010 decision, State v. Bodyke, the Supreme Court of Ohio voided as unconstitutional two sections of the Ohio Adam Walsh Act (AWA) that authorized the state attorney general to reclassify sex offenders who had previously been classified by judges under an earlier version of the law, “Megan’s Law.” The Court held that the challenged provisions violated the separation-of-powers doctrine of the Ohio Constitution. The defendants in Bodyke also argued that application of the AWA to crimes that were committed before the July 1, 2007 effective date of that legislation violated the constitutional prohibition against “ex post facto” laws (laws that retroactively increase the punishment for a crime after the crime has been committed). However, because the Court’s ruling on the separation of powers issue voided the Bodyke defendants’ reclassifications under the AWA and reinstated their Megan’s Law registration status, the justices declined to review the appellants’ ex post facto arguments. In this case, a defendant not affected by the Bodyke decision challenges on ex post facto grounds a trial court order that applied the AWA classification scheme in sentencing him for a crime he committed before July 1, 2007.

When the General Assembly adopted the AWA, it specified that, regardless of when a defendant’s crime was committed, state courts sentencing sex offenders on or after July 1, 2007 must apply the new AWA sex offender classification scheme and include in the defendant’s sentence registration and community notification requirements set forth in the AWA that are more severe than similar provisions in the previous, Megan’s Law, version of the statute.

George Williams of Warren County was convicted in December 2007 of engaging in sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl. The conduct on which his conviction was based took place in May 2007. Prior to his sentencing hearing, Williams entered a motion asking the trial court to sentence him under the Megan’s Law sex offender classification scheme that was in effect on the date of his offense, rather than under the AWA classification scheme. The trial court overruled Williams’ motion. He was sentenced to three years of community control and classified as a Tier II offender under the AWA, requiring him to register with the sheriff in his county of residence every 180 days for the next 25 years. If he had been sentenced under the Megan’s law version of the statute, Williams, who had no prior sex-related convictions, would have been subject to once-a-year registration for 10 years.

Williams appealed, arguing that the retroactive application of the AWA registration requirements to his May 2007 offense violated the ex post facto, due process and double jeopardy clauses of the U.S. Constitution and the retroactivity clause of the Ohio Constitution. The 12th District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s classification of Williams under the AWA as constitutional. The court of appeals cited several prior Supreme Court of Ohio decisions including State v. Cook (1998), State v. Wilson (2007), and State v. Ferguson (2008), in which this Court held that the statutory registration and community notification requirements imposed by the state on sex offenders were civil and “remedial” measures designed to protect the public rather than punitive measures intended to punish or deter offenders. Applying that same analysis to Williams’ case, the 12th District held that retroactive imposition of the AWA registration requirements as part of Williams’ sentence did not retroactively “increase the punishment” for his crime, and therefore did not violate the ex post facto clause of the U.S. Constitution or the retroactivity clause of the state constitution.

Williams sought and has been granted Supreme Court review of the 12th District’s ruling.

Attorneys for Williams point out that the Cook, Wilson and Ferguson decisions cited by the 12th District all analyzed the pre-2008 sex offender classification scheme under Megan’s Law, not the more stringent requirements imposed by the AWA. They argue that these earlier decisions relied on the fact that, before a sex offender was classified under Megan’s Law, the court was required to conduct a hearing at which the judge reviewed the facts of that specific case and the defendant’s personal and social history to determine how likely that individual was to reoffend — and then impose whatever level of registration and/or community notification the court found necessary to protect the community. They note that the AWA has eliminated judicial review of an individual offender’s history or the circumstances of his crime for purposes of classification, and instead imposes identical registration and community notification requirements on offenders based exclusively on their offense. The appellants argue that the AWA classification system is no longer primarily a remedial scheme related to the actual danger posed by individual offenders.

Attorneys for the state point to specific language included in the AWA stating that the legislature’s intent was “to protect the safety and welfare of the people of this state,” and that the exchange or release of information required by the statute “is not punitive.” They argue that the registration and community notification requirements in the AWA are merely expansions of requirements that were already imposed under Megan’s Law, and assert that nothing in the 2007 changes to the law have changed the nature or intent of those requirements from remedial to punitive. Accordingly, they assert, the Court should follow its earlier holdings that requiring sex offenders to register with police and disclosing their presence to others who live, work or attend school nearby is not punishment, and applying those requirements retroactively does not offend the ex post facto provisions of the Ohio or U.S. constitutions.

NOTE: An amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief supporting the position of Williams has been submitted by the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center and Texas Association Against Sexual Assault. The American Civil Liberties Union also has submitted an amicus brief supporting Williams’ position. The Ohio attorney general’s office and Franklin County prosecutor’s office have entered amicus briefs supporting the position of the state. Copies of the amicus briefs and all other filings in the case can be accessed by going to the following hyperlink: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/ecms/searchbycasenumber.asp and entering the case number, 2009-0088, in the search box provided.

Contacts
Michael Greer, 513.695.1325, for the state and Warren County prosecutor’s office.

Senate Bill 316 is “to clarify for an offender or delinquent child who had SORN Law duties under the SORN Law in effect prior to January 1, 2008, the offender’s or child’s duties under the current SORN Law and the duration of those duties and to declare an emergency.”

Those who are concerned about this attempt to retroactively re-capture (onto the sex offender registries) all offenders whose crimes pre-dated the 2008 law change, should immediately contact these Senators to voice your opposition.

“Create a list of all the sex offenders who were reclassified via the 2010 Bodyke ruling, notifying them all by mail, and forcing them into court one at a time to have a judge issue a new Adam Walsh Act sentencing order. It would re-reclassify all of these individuals into the AWA tier scheme, adding thousands to the registry, many for life.”

Both of these bills will be debated within the respective House & Senate Criminal Justice Committees. Readers should contact the members of this committee in order to voice your opposition to these bills.

Ohio Legislators are going at it again. Just six months after having been soundly defeated in the June 2010 Bodyke vs. Ohio Supreme Court ruling, seven Ohio House Representatives have proposed new legislation to retroactively revise Ohio’s sex offender laws to re-capture all offenders who committed crimes before 2008 onto the rolls of the sex offender registry.

Those concerned about this proposed legislation must contact the seven Representatives immediately to express their opposition to this bill. If we are forced to do so, ConstitutionalFights will return to the battlefield to help defeat this latest attempt by the Ohio Legislature to violate the constitutional rights of 30,000 Ohio citizens.

“clarify that SORN Law definitions of sexually oriented offenses, child-victim oriented offenses, tier classifications, public registry-qualified juvenile offender registrants, and related terms include the specified offenses regardless of when they were committed and to provide for court reclassification of offenders and delinquent children who committed their sexually oriented offense or child-victim oriented offense prior to January 1, 2008, and had SORN Law duties based on that offense into one of the tier classifications of the current SORN Law.

We seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio should this legislation be put into law. We also still seek legal professionals who are willing to engage in a lawsuit against the State of Ohio regarding the Bodyke Supreme Court ruling of June 2010 for damages of those 30,000 former offenders who were maintained on the sex offender registry 2-1/2 years after they should legally have been removed.

We must collectively hit these legislators squarely in the “front teeth” this time to assure that we do not experience what we experienced between 2008 and 2010.

BLUESHIFT: The purpose and objective of this site is to distribute data on sexual offender registration laws focusing on Ohio. Including the history and status of proposed legislation and court opinions and ongoing litigation.

“The ten year recidivism rate for the group of sex offenders in this study was 11%. Eight percent of the offenders returned for a new crime. Another 3% were revoked for a parole violation that was sexual in nature (sex crime), or a relapse behavior (sex lapse).”

We have warned about this horrific legislation many times on our blogs. We have asked readers to contact their Representatives to tell them to kill this bill. Now, it has passed the House and will move on to the Senate.

The GAO report said the Department of State cannot legally deny passports to registered sex offenders, except those specifically convicted of sex tourism.

The report concluded that about 4,500 U.S. passports of the more than 16 million issued in fiscal year 2008 were issued to registered sex offenders.

“Federal statutes authorize the Secretary of State to deny issuance of a passport in certain circumstances, such as while an individual is imprisoned or on parole or supervised release for a conviction for international drug trafficking or sex tourism or is in arrearages for child support,” the report states. “However, there is currently no comprehensive program to deny passports to applicants who are registered sex offenders.”

The State Department called the report “very misleading” and adding it “conveys more ‘shock value’ than factual accuracy.” (Of course, this report is intended to shock and outrage the public)

In a written response, the department pointed out that only a fraction of 1 percent of the 16 million passports issued in fiscal year 2008 went to registered sex offenders. In addition, the title of the report “fails to convey that GAO found no lawful reasons for the department to deny or revoke the passports of the case study sex offenders based on their status as sex offenders.”

“The report appears to suggest, without any foundation, that the Department’s issuance of passports to certain Americans facilitated their commission of sex crimes abroad,” the department’s response said. “There are no facts in the report which show that any of the thirty individuals included in the case studies used his passport to travel to a foreign country to commit a sex crime.”

The GAO studied data from the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR). However, the approximately 4,500 sex offenders who received passports in fiscal year 2008 “is likely understated because many of the records in the passport database and the NSOR lacked valid Social Security numbers … In addition, the NSOR does not currently contain a comprehensive listing of all sex offenders from the states.”

The GAO found cases that include a sex offender from Texas who received a passport while in prison, a Delaware man with multiple sex convictions who traveled to the Philippines, Germany and France since receiving his passport, and a Georgia man who has traveled to the Philippines, Ireland and Panama.

Among the federal employees who received passports was an aerospace engineer with NASA, an employee of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and a Postal Service carrier who traveled to Taiwan and Japan after receiving his passport.

About 50 of those who received passports either lived outside the United States or “their whereabouts were unknown,” the report said.

A new law took effect in December 2008 that prohibits anyone convicted of sex tourism from receiving a U.S. passport. However, the report said, the Department of State was not even aware of the law until April of this year after the GAO “brought this statute to its attention.”

“When Congress passes a law and the president signs it, then the Executive Branch needs to execute it,” Grassley said in a statement. “I’m shocked that GAO had to inform the State Department that Congress made individuals convicted of sex tourism ineligible for passports back in December 2008. It’s inexcusable that the State Department did nothing to enforce that provision for 14 months. Since someone who is late on child support payments cannot receive a passport, then surely these criminals should also be stopped from traveling internationally.”

“It also is disturbing that the GAO found examples prior to that new law where the State Department issued passports to convicted sex offenders who fled law enforcement, received government housing subsidies, and work for the Post Office. This report raises a lot of serious questions about how effectively the government protects us from child predators,” Grassley said. (Grassley doesn’t know the difference between a Predator and a Sex Offender)

The report also studied a group of registered sex offenders — many who held positions of public trust, including a school teacher, religious layman, and health care provider.

“Other cases involve registered sex offenders who owe child support or are currently in prison or whose whereabouts are unknown,” the report said. “… Several of our cases showed that sex offenders left the country and moved to Mexico. According to State officials, Mexico does not have a sex offense registration system, so these offenders are likely unknown to authorities and their neighbors.”

The Department of State “has indicated that it would like to study any proposed legislation to provide additional authority to deny passports to sex offenders, including constitutional, policy and practical issues that may arise in its application and use,” the report said. “A State official said that the department recently began working with [the Department of Justice] to develop a procedure for tracking these convictions and a procedure to notify State of those convictions.”

This report answers a few of the questions we have had regarding travel with a passport as a former sex offender. As the post noted above details, we have first hand knowledge that Canada border agents deny anyone with a sex offense entry into Canada. We believe this is related to how the U.S. and Canada computer databases are so well connected. This may not be the case with other countries. We would like to hear from anyone with knowledge about international travel of persons with a sex offense in their history. We would like to report on this topic.

If you have a sex offense history and have traveled overseas, please tell us how it went for you.Did you obtain a visa beforehand? Did you declare this felony? Was your history (or passport bar code) checked at the Entry Point before you were permitted entry? If you have official information about this topic, please provide sources.